Status of the Lawsuits Challenging the Affordable Care Act s Birth Control Coverage Benefit

Transcription

1 Status of the Lawsuits Challenging the Affordable Care Act s Birth Control Coverage Benefit Over 100 lawsuits 1 have been filed in federal court challenging the Affordable Care Act s birth control coverage benefit. The benefit requires new health plans to include coverage for the full range of FDA-approved methods of birth control, sterilization, and related education and counseling at no cost-sharing. Both for-profit companies and non-profit organizations have challenged the birth control coverage requirement. Status of For-Profit Cases: For-profit companies ranging from a mining company to the Hobby Lobby crafts store chain to an HVAC company have objected to including coverage of birth control in their health insurance plans. 46 for-profit cases are pending (including 4 cases that include both for- and non-profit plaintiffs), of a total of 50 cases that have been filed by for-profits. Two cases were dismissed, one of which was then re-filed in another court. Final judgments have been issued in two cases. On June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) allows some for-profit corporations to get out of complying with the birth control coverage requirement if they have religious beliefs against providing it. The Court held: o Closely-held corporations owned by families like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties can bring claims under RFRA; o The contraceptive coverage benefit imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood; and o Requiring birth control coverage through the employer s health insurance plan is not the least restrictive means of furthering the government s compelling interests which the majority assumed the government had and the government could otherwise ensure women receive coverage and will not be harmed. 1 This number counts each case as a unique case, even if the same parties filed an earlier challenge that was dismissed or voluntarily withdrawn. Four cases have been filed by that include both for- and non-profit employers. These cases are counted as both for-profit and non-profit cases. For ease of reference, we have listed these cases in a separate chart starting on page 18.

2 After issuing its decision in Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court vacated the rulings in three cases where plaintiffs had asked for Supreme Court review, sending the cases back to the lower courts for further consideration in light of Hobby Lobby. Eden Foods and Autocam returned to the 6th Circuit. Gilardi returned to the D.C. Circuit. We expect courts in the other pending for-profit cases to also reconsider them in light of Hobby Lobby, and to grant relief where the court finds that the businesses are similar to Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood. On August 22, 2014, in response to the Supreme Court s decision, the Administration issued a rule proposing to expand the accommodation in place for non-profit organizations with religious objections to contraceptive coverage to closely-held forprofit companies. The proposed rule aims to ensure that women receive contraceptive coverage with no cost-sharing as guaranteed by the ACA while being consistent with the Supreme Court s decision in Hobby Lobby. The Administration is seeking comment on its proposal by October 21, Status of Non-Profit Cases: Non-profit organizations are objecting to the accommodation under the birth control coverage requirement, which allows objecting non-profits to refuse coverage in their health insurance plans but ensures women receive the coverage directly from the insurance company. 42 non-profit cases are pending (including 4 cases that include both for- and non-profit plaintiffs), of a total of 65 cases that have been filed by non-profit organizations. Several cases were initially dismissed on procedural grounds; some of these cases were then re-filed after the accommodation rule was finalized. The pending cases challenge the accommodation rule finalized by the Departments of Labor, Treasury, and Health and Human Services (HHS) on June 28, The accommodation rule allows a nonprofit that holds itself out as religious and has religious objections to birth control to refuse to provide health insurance coverage of it, while ensuring that the non-profit s employees receive the coverage without cost-sharing directly from the insurance company. The Supreme Court s Hobby Lobby decision will not have a direct effect on these cases, and these cases will continue to proceed through the courts. Two circuit courts of appeals have rejected the RFRA claims of the non-profits, finding that the accommodation did not impose a substantial burden on their religious exercise: the 6th Circuit in Michigan Catholic Conference/Diocese of Nashville and 7th Circuit in University of Notre Dame - 2 -

3 The D.C. Circuit heard oral argument in Priests for Life/Archbishop of Washington but has not yet issued a decision. Three circuit courts of appeals have issued temporary relief: the 3d Circuit in Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia granted a temporary injunction pending further order of the court; the 11th Circuit in Eternal World Television Network granted an injunction pending appeal; and the 10th Circuit in Diocese of Cheyenne granted an injunction pending appeal (on the condition that plaintiffs file notice with HHS that they are organizations that hold themselves out as religious and have religious objections to contraceptive coverage). On January 24, 2014, the Supreme Court issued an emergency injunction pending appeal in Little Sisters on the condition that the petitioners in that case file notice with HHS that they are organizations that hold themselves out as religious and have religious objections to contraceptive coverage. On July 3, a majority of the Court issued a similar order in Wheaton College. Justice Sotomayor wrote a lengthy dissent, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Kagan. In both cases, the order emphasized that it should not be construed as the Court s views on the merits of the non-profits claims. On August 22, 2014, in response to the Supreme Court s order in Wheaton College, the Administration issued an interim final rule modifying the accommodation for non-profit organizations with religious objections to contraceptive coverage. The rule provides an alternative process by which an organization may provide notice of its religious objections to contraceptive coverage, while still preserving women s access to such coverage with no cost-sharing. Under the rule, non-profit organizations may notify the Department of Health and Human Services instead of their insurance company or third party administrator (TPA). Status of Other Cases: 2 other cases are pending, including a case brought by an individual who objects to having insurance that includes coverage for birth control and a case brought by a non-profit seeking confirmation from the court that it is eligible for the accommodation. One other case, brought by eight states, was voluntarily dismissed. (See chart on page 34.) The attached charts detail these cases. The first chart contains the for-profit cases; the second contains challenges that include both for and non-profits; the third contains the non-profit cases; and the fourth contains other related cases. Each chart is organized by the region of the country in which the case was filed, according to the boundaries of the courts of appeals. The - 3 -

4 cases that have been heard by the Supreme Court are highlighted in yellow. Closed cases are highlighted in grey. The chart can also be found online at s-no-cost-sharingcontraceptive-coverage-benefit. For more information about the health care law s birth control coverage benefit and the legal claims at issue in the cases, please visit:

5 Case 1 Tyndale House v. Filed 10/2/ cv-1635 (D.D.C.) (D.C. Cir.) For-Profit Cases (last updated ) Description and Location of Status For-Profit Company Tyndale is an Illinois forprofit publishing company government appealed to the D.C. Circuit and then District court granted a preliminary injunction. The focusing on Christian books. moved to voluntarily dismiss the appeal, which the D.C. Circuit granted. The district court denied the government s motion to stay the case pending the D.C. Circuit s decision in Gilardi. The plaintiffs and the government are both seeking summary judgment. 2 Gilardi v. Filed 1/24/ cv-104 (D.D.C.) (D.C. Cir.) (SCOTUS) Freshway Foods is a fresh produce processor and packer. Freshway Logistics is a forhire carrier of mainly refrigerated products. The companies are Ohio-based for-profits that serve 23 states. In December 2013, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding the owners of Tyndale House Publishers as co-plaintiffs. District court denied a preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs appealed to the D.C. Circuit, which granted an injunction pending the appeal. Amicus brief filed in the D.C. Circuit on behalf of NWLC and 14 other national, regional, state and local organizations. A divided D.C. Circuit reversed the district court s denial of a preliminary injunction, finding that while for-profit corporations cannot exercise religion under RFRA or the First Amendment, the individual owners here successfully asserted a claim against the contraceptive coverage requirement. It returned the case to the district court to reconsider whether to grant a preliminary injunction. Despite a victory in the D.C. Circuit, the for-profit companies asked the Supreme Court to review the part of the D.C. Circuit s decision that held that a forprofit corporation is not a person capable of religious exercise. The government has also filed a cert petition asking the Supreme Court to review the D.C. Circuit s decision. The D.C. Circuit has ordered that the injunction pending appeal continue until the end of Supreme Court proceedings. The Supreme Court granted the petitioners cert petition, vacated the D.C. Circuit s ruling, and - 5 -

6 3 Johnson Welded Products v. Filed 4/30/ cv-609 (D.D.C.) 4 Willis & Willis PLC v. Filed 7/24/ cv-1124 (D.D.C.) 5 Trijicon, Inc. v. (also known as Bindon v. ) Filed 8/5/ cv-1207 (D.D.C.) 6 Barron Industries v. Filed 9/4/ cv-1330 (D.D.C.) 7 Midwest Fastener Corp. v. Filed 9/5/2013 Johnson Welded Products is an Ohio-based manufacturer of reservoirs for air brake systems. Willis & Willis PLC is a Michigan-based law firm. Trijicon, Inc. is a Michiganbased maker of aiming systems for firearms. Barron Industries, Inc. is a Michigan-based company that produces metal castings for various industries. Midwest Fastener Corp. is a Michigan-based company that supplies fasteners to the hardware store, home remanded the case to that court for further consideration in light of Hobby Lobby. The Court also denied the government s cert petition. The D.C. Circuit remanded the case to the district court with instructions to enter a preliminary injunction for the Freshway companies, which the court did. Parties submitted a joint status report on September 26, In the report both parties agreed to a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and a permanent injunction. However, the parties disagree about the language and scope of the injunction, so the court has ordered briefing on this issue. District court granted an unopposed motion for temporary injunctive relief and stayed the case. District court granted unopposed motions for a preliminary injunction and to stay the case. Following the Supreme Court s decision in Hobby Lobby, the court sought joint status reports from the parties and extended the stay until November 9, District court granted unopposed motions for a preliminary injunction and to stay the case. Following the Supreme Court s decision in Hobby Lobby, the district court ordered the parties to submit recommendations for further proceedings by October 8, District court granted unopposed motions for a preliminary injunction and to stay the case. Following the Supreme Court s decision in Hobby Lobby, the district court extended the preliminary injunction until November 7, 2014, and ordered the parties to submit a joint status report. District court granted unopposed motions for a preliminary injunction and to stay the case. The court has ordered the parties to submit a joint status report no later than

7 13-cv (D.D.C.) 8 Williams v. Filed 10/30/ cv (D.D.C.) 9 C.W. Zumbiel, Co. v. Filed 10/22/ cv (D.D.C.) 10 Stewart et al. v. Filed 11/27/ cv (D.D.C.) 11 Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation v. Burwell Filed 12/4/ cv-6744 (E.D. Pa.) (3d. Cir.) (SCOTUS) center, and industrial markets. The Williams own Electrolock Inc., an Ohiobased corporation that works in the electrical and thermal insulation industry. Other plaintiff companies include Stone River Management Co. and Dunstone Co. Zumbiel Packaging is a Kentucky-based manufacturer of paperboard packaging for consumer goods. Encompass Develop, Design & Construct, LLC is a Kentucky-based architect, design and construction service of which John Stewart is the managing and sole member. Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation is a Pennsylvania-based wood cabinet and specialty products manufacturer. District court granted unopposed motions for a preliminary injunction and to stay the case. The case is stayed until to allow the government to determine how to proceed in light of Hobby Lobby. District court granted unopposed motions for a preliminary injunction and to stay the case. Parties have submitted a joint status report requesting the court stay the case until October 6, 2014 and allow the government to determine how to proceed in light of Hobby Lobby. District court granted unopposed motions for a preliminary injunction and to stay the case until the DC Circuit rules in Gilardi (pending the outcome of Hobby Lobby/Conestoga Wood). District court initially granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) but then dismissed a motion for a preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs appealed to the 3 rd Circuit, which affirmed the district court s denial of a preliminary injunction. The 3 rd Circuit denied plaintiffs request for en banc review. Plaintiffs filed a cert petition with the Supreme Court, asking the Court to review the 3 rd Circuit s decision that a corporation is not a person under RFRA or the First Amendment. The 3 rd Circuit denied plaintiffs motion to stay the decision until the conclusion of plaintiffs appeal to the Supreme Court. Amicus brief filed in the 3 rd Circuit on behalf of NWLC and 15 other national, regional, state and local organizations

8 12 Holland et al v. Filed 6/24/ cv (S.D. W. Va.) 13 Autocam Corporation et al. v. Burwell Filed 10/8/ cv-1096 (W.D. Mich.) , (6th Cir.) Holland Chevrolet is a West Virginia-based corporation engaged in selling and servicing motor vehicles. Autocam Automotive makes parts for transportation while Autocam Medical makes medical equipment. These are West-Michigan-based manufacturing companies that operate across the United States. On November 26, 2013, the Supreme Court granted the cert petitions in Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties and consolidated the cases. Amicus brief filed at the Supreme Court on behalf of NWLC and 68 other organizations. On June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court held that closely-held corporations like Conestoga Wood Specialties can refuse to include in their employee insurance plans coverage for birth control to which they have religious objections. The Court reversed the 3 rd Circuit s decision and remanded the case to that court for further proceedings in light of the Supreme Court s decision. The 3 rd Circuit remanded the case to the district court which, in light of Conestoga s amended motion for a preliminary injunction and the Supreme Court s decision in Hobby Lobby, entered a preliminary injunction. The district court permanently enjoined the government from enforcing the contraceptive coverage provision against the plaintiffs. After the Supreme Court s Hobby Lobby decision, the district court entered a consent order granting plaintiff a preliminary injunction. District court denied a preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs appealed to the 6 th Circuit. Amicus brief filed in the 6 th Circuit on behalf of NWLC and 22 other national, regional, and state organizations. A three judge panel in the 6 th Circuit issued a unanimous decision holding that Autocam is not a person under RFRA and therefore does not have standing to bring a RFRA challenge to the contraceptive coverage rule. The plaintiffs filed a cert petition with the Supreme Court, asking the Court to review the 6 th Circuit s - 8 -

9 14 Domino s Farms Corporation v. Filed 12/14/ cv (E.D. Mich.) (6th Cir.) 15 Infrastructure Alternatives Inc. v. Filed 1/10/ cv (W.D. Mich.) 16 Mersino Management Company v. Domino s Farms is a Michigan-based property management company. Infrastructure Alternatives is a Michigan corporation. It is a contractor in the fields of environmental dredging, contaminated sediment remediation, geotextile tube installation, and water treatment operations. Mersino Management Co. is a Michigan-based management company and provides insurance for decision that a corporation is not a person capable of religious exercise under RFRA or the First Amendment. The Supreme Court granted petitioners cert petition, vacated the 6 th Circuit s ruling, and remanded the case to that court for further consideration in light of Hobby Lobby. Motion filed September 12, 2014 to dismiss Autocam Corp. as party to the appeal. (Plaintiff John Kennedy sold Autocam Corp. in Summer 2014, but he is continuing the case as owner of Autocam Medical.) District court granted a preliminary injunction. The government appealed to the 6 th Circuit. In light of the 6 th Circuit s Autocam decision, the government filed a motion with the 6 th Circuit to reverse the district court s grant of a preliminary injunction. Amicus brief filed in the 6 th Circuit on behalf of NWLC and 17 other national, regional, state, and local organizations. The district court denied plaintiffs motion in the district court to reopen the case and lift the stay for the limited purpose of adding several non-profit organizations. The 6 th Circuit decided to review the case without oral argument. Government filed motion to dismiss appeal September 3, In light of the 6 th Circuit s decision in Autocam, the district court ordered the parties to show why it should not apply the 6 th Circuit s reasoning in Autocam and dismiss the claims of the individual and corporate plaintiffs. Plaintiffs stated that they do not agree with the Autocam decision but recognize the district court is bound to follow it and so do not object to the court s dismissal of their RFRA and First Amendment claims. The court then dismissed plaintiffs claims. Case is closed. District court denied a preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs appealed to the 6 th Circuit. Following the Supreme Court s Hobby Lobby decision, - 9 -

10 Filed 3/22/ cv (E.D. Mich.) (6th Cir.) 17 Eden Foods Inc. v. Filed 3/20/ cv (E.D. Mich.) (6th Cir.) (SCOTUS) 18 MK Chambers Company v. Filed 3/28/ cv (E.D. Mich.) Mersino Enterprises, Mersino Dewatering, Global Pump Co., and Mersino South-West. Eden Foods is a Michiganbased corporation that specializes in supplying macrobiotic, organic food. MK Chambers Company is a Michigan-based supplier of specialty machining. the 6 th Circuit granted plaintiffs unopposed motion for an injunction pending appeal and set a briefing schedule. Government filed a motion to remand the case to the District Court. Briefing on a preliminary injunction is stayed pending a decision on the motion for remand. District court denied plaintiffs a preliminary injunction and plaintiffs appealed to the 6 th Circuit. In light of the 6 th Circuit s decision in Autocam, the government filed a motion with the 6 th Circuit to summarily affirm the district court s denial of a preliminary injunction, which the court denied. The court then asked the parties to submit briefs addressing the precedential impact of Autocam. Amicus brief filed in the 6 th Circuit on behalf of NWLC and 19 other national, regional, state, and local organizations. On October 24, 2013, a three judge panel in the 6 th Circuit issued a unanimous decision holding that Eden Foods is not a person under RFRA and therefore does not have standing to bring a RFRA challenge to the contraceptive coverage rule. The court then granted plaintiffs motion to stay the mandate to allow plaintiffs to file a cert petition and, if granted, until the Supreme Court makes a decision regarding the case. On November 12, the plaintiffs filed a cert petition with the Supreme Court, asking the Court to review the 6 th Circuit s decision. The Supreme Court granted petitioners motion and vacated the 6 th Circuit s ruling, and remanded the case to that court for further consideration in light of Hobby Lobby. District court heard oral argument on July 24, 2013 and subsequently denied plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction. Following the Supreme Court s decision in Hobby Lobby, the court granted a preliminary injunction

11 19 M&N Plastics v. Filed 5/31/2013, 13-cv (D.D.C.) Transferred 11/18/ cv (E.D. Mich.) 20 M&N Plastics v. Filed 5/8/ cv (E.D. Mich.) 21 Mersino Dewatering, Inc. v. Filed 9/3/ cv (D.D.C.) Transferred 11/26/ cv (E.D. Mich.) 22 Korte & Luitjohan Contractors v. Filed 10/9/ cv-1072 (S.D. Ill.) (7th Cir.) (SCOTUS) M&N Plastics is a Michiganbased supplier of custom injection molding products. Christopher Nagle is an owner and CFO of M&N Plastics, a Michigan-based supplier of custom injection molding products. Mersino Dewatering, Inc. is a Michigan-based company that provides dewatering (water removal) services. It has branches in Michigan, Florida, North Carolina, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania Korte & Luitjohan Contractors, Inc., is an Illinois-based full-service construction contractor. D.C. district court granted the government s motion to transfer the case back to Michigan, where the plaintiffs originally filed a case (M&N Plastics v., below). The Michigan district court granted the parties joint motion to stay pending the Supreme Court s resolution of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga. District court granted plaintiffs request to dismiss the case without prejudice. Case is closed. The Nagles then filed a second case, M&N Plastics v. (above) in the district court for D.C. D.C. district court granted the government s motion to transfer the case to Michigan district court. The Michigan district court granted the parties joint motion to stay pending the Supreme Court s resolution of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga. District court denied a preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs appealed to the 7 th Circuit and asked for an injunction pending appeal. The Circuit Court granted the emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal and consolidated the case with Grote Industries. Amicus brief filed in the 7 th Circuit on behalf of NWLC and 13 other national organizations. In the consolidated cases of Korte and Grote, a divided 7 th Circuit reversed the lower court s denial of injunctive relief and returned the case to the district court with instructions to grant a preliminary injunction, which the district court did. The government filed a cert petition with the Supreme Court, which the Court denied after its decision in Hobby Lobby

12 23 Triune Health Group v. (also known as Yep v. ) Filed 8/22/ cv-6756 (N.D. Ill.) (7th Cir.) 24 Grote Industries v. Filed 10/29/ cv (S.D. Ind.) (7th Cir.) (SCOTUS) Triune is a Illinois corporation that specializes in facilitating the re-entry of injured workers into the workforce. Grote Industries is an Indiana-based, privately held business manufacturing vehicle safety systems. Following Hobby Lobby, the District Court has continued the preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for summary judgment on the RFRA claim. Plaintiffs also asked the court to stay proceedings on all issues other than consideration of the motion for summary judgment. District court granted a preliminary injunction because it construed the 7 th Circuit decision in Korte as binding. The government appealed to the 7 th Circuit, asked the district court to stay proceedings pending appeal, and asked the Circuit Court to hold the case in abeyance pending Korte. Following the Supreme Court s decision in Hobby Lobby, the 7 th Circuit ordered the parties to file status reports. Appeal dismissed September. 4, Because of the Supreme Court s decision in Hobby Lobby and the proposed HHS regulations for closelyheld corporations (issued Aug. 27, 2014), the district court has issued a permanent injunction and judgment in the case. The government submitted a status report with proposed language for the permanent injunction. The court declined the government s proposed language. District court denied a preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs appealed to the 7 th Circuit. The 7 th Circuit consolidated the case with Korte and, applying its own analysis in Korte to this case, granted Grote Industries a temporary injunction pending appeal, over the strong dissent of one judge. Amicus brief filed in the 7 th Circuit on behalf of NWLC and 13 other national organizations. In the consolidated cases of Korte and Grote, a divided 7 th Circuit reversed the lower court s denial of injunctive relief and returned the case to the district court with instructions to grant a preliminary injunction, which the district court did. The case is stayed pending the Supreme Court s resolution of Hobby Lobby. The government filed a cert petition with the Supreme Court, asking the Court to review the 7 th Circuit s decision which the Court denied after the

13 25 Tonn and Blank Construction v. Filed 9/20/ cv (N.D. Ind.) 26 Lindsay, Rappaport and Postel LLC v. Filed 2/14/ cv-1210 (N.D. Ill.) 27 Hartenbower v. Filed 3/26/ cv (N.D. Ill.) 28 Ozinga v. Filed 5/1/ cv (N.D. Ill.) 29 O Brien v. Filed 3/15/ cv (E.D. Mo.) (8th Cir.) Tonn and Black Construction, LLC, is an Indiana construction company. LR&P is an Illinois-based law firm that primarily practices in insurance defense, insurance coverage, and appellate work. The Hartenbowers co-own Hart Electric LLC, an Illinoisbased manufacturer of electrical components, and H.I. Cable. The Ozingas are owners and senior managers of Ozinga Bros. Inc., an Illinois-based producer of ready-made concrete. O Brien Industrial Holding is a Missouri company engaged in the exploration, mining, processing, manufacturing, and distribution of refractory and ceramic raw materials. decision in Hobby Lobby. The district court has reopened the case and the parties have 30 days to submit proposals for a permanent injunction. District court granted an unopposed preliminary injunction. Following the Supreme Court s decision in Hobby Lobby, the court continued the stay and preliminary injunction. The parties submitted a joint status report agreeing that judgment should be entered in favor of the plaintiff; however, the parties disagree on the language and scope of the injunction. District court granted a preliminary injunction and stayed the case. Following the Supreme Court s decision in Hobby Lobby, the court extended the preliminary injunction, and the parties are ordered to submit a joint status report by October 20, District court granted an unopposed motion for a preliminary injunction and stayed the case pending rulings in the consolidated cases of Korte and Grote. In January 2014 and again in August 2014, the court granted an unopposed extension of the preliminary injunction and the stay. The parties are ordered to submit a joint proposed permanent injunction by October 24, District court granted an unopposed motion for a preliminary injunction and stayed the case pending the 7 th Circuit s rulings in the consolidated cases of Korte and Grote. District court granted the government s motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs appealed to the 8 th Circuit. On November 28, 2012, the 8 th Circuit issued a stay pending the appeal. The 8 th Circuit denied the motion to consolidate with Annex Medical. The 8 th Circuit reversed and remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with Hobby

14 30 American Pulverizer Co. v. Filed 10/19/ cv-3459 (W.D. Mo.) (8th Cir.) 31 Annex Medical Inc. v. Filed 11/2/ cv (D. Minn.) (8th Cir.) 32 Sioux Chief MFG. Co., Inc. v. Filed 1/14/2013 Springfield Iron and Metal, LLC, American Pulverizer Company, Hustler Conveyor Company, and City Welding are four Missouri-based companies involved in the business of wholesale scrap metal recycling and manufacturing of related machines. Annex Medical and Sacred Heart Medical are companies that design, manufacture, and sell medical devices. They are owned by Stuart Lind. Tom Janas is an additional plaintiff who is an entrepreneur who has owned several dairy businesses in the past and intends to purchase another in He currently operates Habile Holdings and Venture North Properties, companies that lease commercial properties but currently have no employees. Sioux Chief MFG. Co, Inc. is a Missouri Corporation that manufactures plumbing products. Lobby. Amicus brief filed in the 8 th Circuit on behalf of NWLC. District court granted a preliminary injunction in part because of the stay granted in O Brien by the 8 th Circuit. The government appealed the preliminary injunction to the 8 th Circuit. Proceedings in the district court are stayed pending the appeal. Appeal dismissed September 4, District court denied a preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs appealed to the 8 th Circuit. The 8 th Circuit granted an injunction pending appeal, relying on the O Brien order. The 8 th Circuit denied the motion to consolidate with O Brien. It heard oral argument on October 24, Amicus brief filed in the 8 th Circuit on behalf of NWLC and 18 other national, regional, state and local organizations. Following the Supreme Court s decision in Hobby Lobby, the 8 th Circuit vacated the district court s denial of a preliminary injunction to Annex and remanded the case back to that court. The 8 th Circuit also dismissed Janas appeal, finding that he lacked standing to appeal. The 8th Circuit granted plaintiffs re-hearing request, and vacated its earlier decision to remand the case. In an opinion issued on October 6, 2014, the 8th Circuit again remanded the case to the district court (and again dismissed Janas s appeal), noting the complicated standing issue presented in the case. District court granted a preliminary injunction. Following the Supreme Court s decision in Hobby Lobby, the district court continued the preliminary injunction and ordered the parties to file a joint status report. 13-cv-0036 (W.D. Mo.) 33 Hall v. Reverend Gregory Hall is a Catholic Deacon who owns The parties submitted a joint status report to the district court agreeing to a proposed permanent injunction and final judgment. District court granted an unopposed motion for a preliminary injunction and stayed the case pending

15 Filed 2/5/ cv (D. Minn.) 34 Bick Holdings Inc. v. United States Department of Health & Human Services et al. Filed 3/13/ cv (E.D. Mo.) 35 SMA LLC. v. Filed 6/6/ cv (D. Minn.) 36 Medford v. (also known as QC Group v. ) Filed 7/2/ cv-1726 (D. Minn.) 37 Feltl & Co., Inc. v. Filed 9/25/ cv-2635 (D. Minn.) 38 Randy Reed Automotive v. Filed 10/8/2013 American Mfg Company, a Minnesota-based company that manufactures and markets mining equipment, mud pumps, and parts for global distribution. Bick Holdings Inc. is a Missouri-based holding company for operating companies Bick Group Inc., Bick Properties Inc., and SEALCO LLC. Through these subsidiaries BHI engages in data center consulting, design, maintenance, service, and cleaning. SMA LLC is a Minnesota based agricultural/industrial construction company. The QC Group Inc is a Minnesota-based corporation, owned by Daniel Medford and David DeVowe, which provides quality control services. Feltl & Co., Inc. is a Minnesota-based securities brokerage and investment banking company. Randy Reed Automotive, Randy Reed Buick GMC, Randy Reed Nissan, and Randy Reed Chevrolet are Missouri-based car rulings in O Brien and Annex Medical. District court granted an unopposed motion for a preliminary injunction. Parties agreed to stay the case and the enforcement of the benefit pending the rulings in O Brien and Annex Medical. District court granted an unopposed motion for a preliminary injunction. Parties agreed to stay the case and the enforcement of the benefit pending the rulings in O Brien and Annex Medical. District court granted an unopposed motion for a preliminary injunction and stayed the case until 30 days after a decision in O Brien or Annex Medical. District court granted plaintiffs unopposed motion for a preliminary injunction, stating that the injunction is in force until 30 days after a decision in O Brien or Annex Medical or until the Supreme Court issues a decision in a substantially similar case. District court granted plaintiffs unopposed motion for preliminary injunction. Following the Supreme Court s decision in Hobby Lobby, the district court continued the preliminary injunction and ordered the parties to file a joint status report and proposed

16 13-cv-6117 (W.D. Mo.) 39 Doboszenski & Sons, Inc. v. Filed 11/14/ cv (D. Minn.) 40 Hastings Automotive v. Filed 1/29/ cv (D. Minn.) 41 Stinson Electric v. Filed 3/26/ cv (D. Minn.) 42 Newland v. Burwell Filed 4/30/ cv (D. Colo.) (10th Cir.) (U.S. Sup. Ct.) 43 Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., et al. v. Burwell dealerships. Doboszenski & Sons is a Minnesota-based company that provides services for excavation, demolition, and street construction and reconstruction. Hastings Automotive, Inc. (known as Hastings Ford) and Hastings Chrysler Center are Minnesota car dealerships. Stinson Electric, Inc. is a Minnesota electrical services company. Hercules Industries, Inc. is a Colorado corporation that manufactures heating, ventilation, and air conditioning products, owned by the Newlands and another plaintiff. Hobby Lobby is a national craft supply chain with headquarters in Oklahoma. injunction and judgment. District court granted plaintiffs unopposed motion for preliminary injunction. The court stayed the case pending resolution of the appeal in either O'Brien or Annex Medical, or until the Supreme Court issues a ruling in a substantially similar case, whichever occurs first. District court denied unopposed motion for preliminary injunction because government agreed not to enforce birth control coverage benefit until 30 days following Supreme Court s resolution of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga. District court granted plaintiffs unopposed motion for a preliminary injunction and stayed the case pending the Supreme Court s resolution of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga. District court granted a preliminary injunction. The government appealed to the 10 th Circuit, which affirmed the district court s preliminary injunction order. The court remanded the case to the district court with instructions to abate further proceedings pending the Supreme Court s consideration of the Hobby Lobby case. The government filed a cert petition with the Supreme Court, which the Court denied after its decision in Hobby Lobby. The parties submitted a joint status report to the district court agreeing that judgment should be entered in favor of the plaintiff; however, the parties disagree on the language and scope of the injunction. District court denied a preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs appealed to the 10 th Circuit. While that appeal was pending, the 10 th Circuit denied separate

17 Filed 9/12/ cv-1000 (W.D. Okla.) , (10th Cir.) (SCOTUS) Mardel (another plaintiff) is a privately held bookstore and education company specializing in Christian books and religious texts. injunctive relief. The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for the separate relief but the Supreme Court refused to hear the case. Amicus brief filed in the 10 th Circuit on behalf of NWLC and 25 other national, regional, state and local organizations. A divided en banc panel of the 10 th Circuit reversed the lower court s denial of injunctive relief and returned the case to the district court to reconsider whether to grant a preliminary injunction. After the 10 th Circuit s decision, the district court granted the plaintiffs emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The government filed a cert petition with the Supreme Court asking it to review the 10 th Circuit s en banc decision. On November 26, 2013, the Supreme Court granted the cert petitions in Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties and consolidated the cases. Amicus brief filed at the Supreme Court on behalf of NWLC and 68 other organizations. The Supreme Court heard oral argument on March 25, On June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court affirmed the 10th Circuit s decision and held that closely-held corporations like Hobby Lobby can refuse to include in their employee insurance plans coverage for birth control to which they have religious objections. Following the Supreme Court s decision, the 10 th Circuit held the case in abeyance and gave the government until September 5, 2014 to decide how it wishes to proceed in the case. Appeal dismissed September 4, The district court ordered the parties to submit a joint status report and a joint proposed injunction to the district court by October 17, Briscoe v. Burwell Continuum Health Partnership is a Colorado- District court denied a temporary restraining order. Following the district court s grant of a preliminary

18 Filed 2/4/ cv-285 (D. Colo.) (10th Cir.) 45 Armstrong v. Filed 3/5/ cv (D. Colo.) (10th Cir.) based oxygen supply company. Conessione is an investment company. Cherry Creek Mortgage Co. is a Colorado-based fullservice residential mortgage banking company. injunction in Hobby Lobby and after submitting answers to additional questions the district court instructed them to answer, the court granted plaintiffs a preliminary injunction with respect to the contraceptive methods to which plaintiff objects. Following the Supreme Court s decision in Hobby Lobby, the 10 th Circuit granted the government s motion to hold the case in abeyance and gave the government until September 5, 2014 to decide how it wishes to proceed in the case. Appeal dismissed September 4, District court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs appealed to the 10 th Circuit. After the 10 th Circuit s decision in Hobby Lobby, the plaintiffs filed a motion with the district court for an injunction pending appeal and requested a decision as soon as possible. The 10 th Circuit vacated the district court s denial of the preliminary injunction and remanded the case to the district court to proceed in light of its en banc decision in Hobby Lobby. The district court then granted plaintiffs a preliminary injunction. Following the Supreme Court s decision in Hobby Lobby, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. The district court permanently enjoined the government from enforcing the contraceptive coverage provision against the plaintiffs. 46 Beckwith Electric Co. v. Filed 3/12/ cv-648 (M.D. Fla.) (11th Cir.) Beckwith Electric Co. is a Florida-based provider of micro-processor-based technology. District court granted a preliminary injunction. The government appealed to the 11 th Circuit. Amicus brief filed in the 11 th Circuit on behalf of NWLC and 13 other national, regional, state and local organizations. Following the Supreme Court s decision in Hobby Lobby, the government submitted a status report and the 11 th Circuit set oral argument for October 15, Appeal dismissed September 4,

19 Case 1 Geneva College v. Filed 2/21/ cv (W.D. Pa.) , , (3d. Cir.) Cases that Include Both For- and Non-Profit Plaintiffs (last updated ) Description and Location of Status Plaintiffs The Pennsylvania-based forprofit plaintiffs are Seneca Hardwood, a lumber business, and WLH Enterprises, a sawmill. Geneva College is a Pennsylvania-based nonprofit. The for-profit plaintiff, Seneca Hardwood ( ): The district court granted a preliminary injunction. The government appealed to the 3 rd Circuit, which stayed the case. Following the Supreme Court s decision in Hobby Lobby, the government filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal regarding the for-profit plaintiff only. Status conference set for October 10, The non-profit plaintiff, Geneva College s student health plan ( ): The district court initially dismissed the non-profit plaintiff, Geneva College, on grounds of ripeness. The district court then granted Geneva College s motion for reconsideration, stating that some of Geneva College s claims were ripe and granted a preliminary injunction. The government is appealing this decision to the 3 rd Circuit. Oral argument scheduled for November 21, Weingartz Supply Company v. (also known as Legatus v. ) Filed 5/7/2012 Weingartz Supply Company is a Michigan company that sells outdoor power equipment. Legatus is a non-profit organization comprising more than 4000 members including individuals and professional The non-profit plaintiff, Geneva College s employee health plan ( ): The district court granted a preliminary injunction. The government appealed to the 3 rd Circuit. The 3 rd Circuit is holding the for-profit appeal in abeyance as the Supreme Court considers the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga cases. The court consolidated for purposes of briefing the non-profit Geneva College challenge, Perisco, and Zubik. Oral argument scheduled for November 21, Amicus brief filed in the 3 rd Circuit by the NWLC on behalf of 20 other national, state, and local organizations. District court initially granted a preliminary injunction for plaintiff Daniel Weingartz and Weingartz Supply Company, but not the non-profit plaintiff Legatus. The for-profit plaintiff, Weingartz ( ): the government appealed to the 6 th Circuit. Following the 6 th Circuit decision in Autocam, parties submitted briefs addressing the effect of Autocam on this case

20 12-cv (E.D. Mich.) , , (6th Cir.) 3 Sharpe Holdings Inc. v. Filed 12/20/ cv-92 (E.D. Mo.) (8th Cir.) 4 Catholic Benefits Association v. Burwell Filed 3/12/ cv-240, 14-cv (W.D. Okla.) organizations. Sharpe Holdings, Inc. is a Missouri corporation that is involved in the farming, dairy, creamery, and cheese-making industries. Ozark National Life Insurance Company is a Missouri insurance corporation; N.I.S. Financial Services is a Missouri mutual fund broker, and CNS Corporation is the Missouri-based holding company for Ozark, N.I.S. and Sharpe Holdings. For- and non-profit corporations including Good Will Publishers (a North Carolina for-profit corporation), the Catholic Benefits Association, and Catholic Insurance Company. The government filed a motion to dismiss the appeal regarding the for-profit plaintiff. Amicus brief filed in the 6 th Circuit on behalf of NWLC and 16 other national, regional, state and local organizations. The non-profit plaintiff, Legatus: the plaintiffs crossappealed the denial of a preliminary injunction to Legatus and then voluntarily dismissed that appeal ( ). After the government finalized the accommodation in the birth control coverage rule, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and motion for injunctive relief. On December 20, 2013, the district court granted a preliminary injunction to Legatus. The government has appealed to the 6 th Circuit ( ). The 6 th Circuit consolidated the appeal with Ave Maria Foundation, and the parties submitted briefs discussing the impact of Hobby Lobby and Wheaton College. District court granted a preliminary injunction to the for-profit plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint adding two non-profit plaintiffs: CNS International Ministries, Inc. and Heartland Christian College. The district court extended to the non-profit plaintiffs the preliminary injunction and stay that is currently in effect for the for-profit plaintiffs. The government appealed to the 8 th Circuit the preliminary injunction in effect for the non-profit plaintiffs. The Circuit Court set a schedule for the parties to file supplemental briefs regarding the interim final rules on accommodation. Amicus brief filed in the 8 th Circuit non-profit challenge by NWLC on behalf of 20 other national, regional, and state organizations. District court granted a preliminary injunction with respect to non-profit plaintiffs (member employers of the Catholic Benefits Association [CBA]) and for-profit plaintiff (Good Will Publishers), but denied a preliminary injunction for the plaintiffs exempt from the contraceptive coverage rule. District court also dismissed claims of plaintiff Catholic Insurance Company, finding that it lacked standing

21 , (10th Cir.) District court then granted an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order for members of the CBA that joined CBA after the court granted a preliminary injunction. The government appealed to the 10 th Circuit, and plaintiffs cross-appealed asking the Circuit Court for a preliminary injunction with respect to the plaintiffs denied such relief at the district court level Plaintiffs filed a motion for an injunction pending appeal with respect to the third-party administrators and group insurers in the case. Case 1 Belmont Abbey Coll. v. Filed 11/10/ cv (D.D.C.) (D.C. Cir.) 2 Belmont Abbey Coll. v. Non-Profit Cases (last updated ) Location of Status Non-Profit North Carolina District court dismissed on grounds of standing and ripeness. Plaintiffs appealed to the D.C. Circuit. D.C. Circuit had been holding the case until the government completed its rulemaking on the application of the contraceptive coverage benefit to non-profits with religious objections. On August 13, 2013, after considering the parties joint motion to terminate the abeyance status and remand to the district court in light of the final contraceptive coverage rules, the D.C. Circuit ordered that the consolidated cases of Belmont Abbey and Wheaton College be sent back to the district court, instructing the district court to vacate its judgments and dismiss the complaints as moot. The district court vacated its judgment and dismissed the complaints as moot. North Carolina District court stayed the case until October 15, Filed 11/20/ cv-1831 (D.D.C.) 3 Wheaton College v. Filed 7/18/2012 Illinois District court dismissed on grounds of standing and ripeness. Plaintiffs appealed to the D.C. Circuit. D.C. Circuit had been holding the case until the government completed its rulemaking on the application

22 12-cv (D.D.C.) (D.C. Cir.) 4 Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. Filed 5/21/ cv-815 (D.D.C) (D.C. Cir.) 5 Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. Burwell Filed 9/20/ cv (D.D.C.) , (D.C. Cir.) (SCOTUS) Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. of the contraceptive coverage benefit to non-profits with religious objections. On August 13, 2013, after considering the parties joint motion to terminate the abeyance status and remand to the district court in light of the final contraceptive coverage rules, the D.C. Circuit ordered that the consolidated cases of Belmont Abbey and Wheaton College be sent back to the district court to vacate its judgments and dismiss the complaints as moot. The district court vacated its judgment and dismissed the complaints as moot. The district court dismissed the case on grounds of ripeness. The plaintiffs appealed to the D.C. Circuit. The D.C. Circuit denied plaintiffs motion to summarily reverse and ruled to hold the appeal in abeyance, pending a decision in the consolidated cases of Belmont Abbey and Wheaton College. The D.C. Circuit then dismissed as moot the appeal with respect to the initial contraceptive coverage regulations. Following the D.C. Circuit s decision in Wheaton, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against the final contraceptive coverage rule in the D.C. Circuit, which the court denied, stating that such relief should first be sought in the district court. Case is closed. The district court granted summary judgment in part to the government and in part to the non-profit parties. The plaintiffs appealed to the D.C. Circuit, which consolidated the case with Priests for Life. In a 2-1 decision, the D.C. Circuit granted an emergency injunction pending appeal. The government appealed the district court s partial summary judgment with the D.C. Circuit. The D.C. Circuit consolidated the crossappeals and set a briefing schedule. The court heard oral argument on May 8, Amicus brief filed in the D.C. Circuit by the NWLC on behalf of 13 other national and state organizations. The Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari filed by the plaintiffs in which they asked the Court to review the case before the D.C. Circuit issued a decision. Following the Supreme Court s decision in Hobby Lobby, the Court s order in Wheaton College, and the government issuing interim final rules for non-profits, the parties filed supplemental briefs addressing the impact of these developments on the court s analysis,